Attachment-9-Section-M-DRAFT.docx

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. The Government seeks to award up to thirteen (13) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts in two (2) competition pools:

1) Full and Open competition pool: Up to six (6) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to either Small or Large Business competing in the Full and Open competition pool whose offers represent the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award less than six (6) contracts.

2) Small Business Set-Aside competition pool: Up to seven (7) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to Small Businesses competing in the Small Business Set-Aside competition pool whose offers represent the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award less than seven (7) contracts.

Offerors competing in the Small Business Set-Aside competition pool may elect to compete in the Full and Open competition pool. Small Businesses will be evaluated in the appropriate competition pool(s) based on the offeror’s selection located on the front page of the RFP.

Contract award will only be made to Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award up to thirteen (13) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts in two (2) competition pools, as described above, to Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable, superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to award up to thirteen (13) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts in two (2) competition pools, as described above, for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contracts at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) are not required to be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7. Reviews and Visits

The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Section L- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Resource Management Subfactor 3: Quality Management Subfactor 4: Scenario Application Subfactor 5: Small Business Sub-contracting Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The SSEB will strictly adhere to FAR 15.3, as supplemented, and the evaluation process and criteria stated in SSP Attachment 5, Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, during evaluation of proposals. Upon receipt of the proposals, the CO will perform a determination of offeror responsibility and responsiveness. All offerors found to be responsible, and solicitation-compliant, will move forward for source selection evaluations.

a. Initially, offers will be ranked according to total calculated price. An offeror’s total calculated price will be determined by multiplying the Governments estimated hours designated for each Labor Rate Period identified in RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix by the labor rate proposed for each labor category. This multiplication will be done to produce the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the three-year basic period, along with the 2, two-year option periods and the six-month extension period IAW FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract”. For TEP calculation, the six-month extension period unit prices will be based on the proposed unit prices of option two.

b. Next, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), for purposes of efficiency, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range as follows:

i. Full and Open competition pool: the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range composed of a minimum of seven (7) lowest priced offers up to a number of offers determined to be sufficient for efficient evaluation and contract award. If less than seven (7) proposals are received, this competitive range determination for efficiency will not be conducted. Note that the competitive range or “group of lowest priced offers,” will be comprised of only those offerors whose offers are complete (for instance, all labor rates requested have been provided, all documentation requested in the RFP has been submitted with the offeror’s proposal). The Government may exclude from the competitive range any offer that initially appears to fit into the “minimum of seven (7) lowest priced offers up to a number of offers determined to be sufficient for efficient evaluation” range but is found to contain errors such as, but not limited to, an incomplete Labor Category Rate Matrix, other significant pricing errors, or missing proposal volumes. The Government may determine not to establish a competitive range based on pricing for purposes of efficiency at this point, even if more than seven (7) offers are received.

ii. 2) Small Business Set-Aside competition pool: the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range composed of a minimum of ten (10) lowest priced offers up to a number of offers determined to be sufficient for efficient evaluation and contract award. If less than ten (10) proposals are received, this competitive range determination for efficiency will not be conducted. Note that the competitive range or “group of lowest priced offers,” will be comprised of only those offerors whose offers are complete (for instance, all labor rates requested have been provided, all documentation requested in the RFP has been submitted with the offeror’s proposal). The Government may exclude from the competitive range any offer that initially appears to fit into the “minimum of ten (10) lowest priced offers up to a number of offers determined to be sufficient for efficient evaluation” range but is found to contain errors such as, but not limited to, an incomplete Labor Category Rate Matrix, other significant pricing errors, or missing proposal volumes. The Government may determine not to establish a competitive range based on pricing for purposes of efficiency at this point, even if more than ten (10) offers are received.

c. After the initial ranking by price and following the potential competitive range determination described in paragraph (b) above, the Government will evaluate technical, past performance, and Price concurrently as follows: 1) the technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the offerors remaining in the competitive range. The technical proposals will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis with the technical evaluation team assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable to each technical proposal. The proposals will be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below; 2) Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below; and 3) Price (price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance) will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below for all proposals within the competitive range. The SSA will then assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the overall Technical rating. The Technical ratings are defined as follows:

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed program management approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. The approach must effectively describe how the offeror will manage and accomplish transition of Task Order requirements to/from another service provider and stand-up of a new CFT site, which ensures the contractor will be fully operational by Task Order Period of Performance start date IAW PWS 4.2.1.

b. The approach must effectively describe the offeror’s management capability in weapon systems maintenance/modification/repair, which ensures the requirements of PWS para 2.0 are met. In addition, the approach must ensure the successful establishment of a contractor management office by contract award, and the ability to successfully perform tasks, submit deliverables and resolve issues and discrepancies to meet requirements IAW PWS 4.1.

c. The approach must ensure the offeror can successfully manage multiple requirements, which includes successful transition of multiple sites concurrently, to meet the requirements of PWS 2.0, 4.1 and 4.2.

d. The approach must describe how the offeror shall effectively track, monitor, manage, control and audit task order cost down to the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) & sub-CLIN level to meet the requirements of PWS 4.1.1.

e. A sound organizational approach and management structure which ensures the PWS requirements will be met IAW PWS 4.1.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Resource Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed resource management approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. A sound approach for obtaining and retaining qualified personnel which ensures the requirements of PWS paragraphs 4.2 are met.

b. A sound approach which meets rapid response requirements at both CONUS and OCONUS locations in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.2. The approach must ensure the offeror can successfully respond to Fair Opportunity Notices (FON) within 72 hours, when required, and must ensure timely availability of appropriate personnel to meet accelerated delivery schedules or surge requirements at both CONUS and OCONUS locations.

c. A security clearance process which ensures all personnel have the required mix of skills and clearance levels necessary to accomplish the CFT mission. The proposed process must meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 5.2.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Quality Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed quality management approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. A verifiable Quality Management System (QMS) that is Aerospace Standard (AS) 9100 compliant. This QMS must effectively describe how the offeror's quality management plan is compliant with AS 9100 and show verifiable objective evidence to demonstrate compliance. The offeror’s AS 9100 compliance must be supported by verifiable objective evidence IAW PWS 4.3.

b. Acceptable Standard Operating Procedures/Local Operating Instructions (SOPs/LOIs) as required IAW PWS 4.3.2.1. Offerers must have verifiable SOPs, which are compliant with AS9100, and include acceptable quality procedures for the following AS9100 clauses:

i. QMS processes as defined in AS9100 Clause 4 (quality manual, control of documents/records, configuration management);

ii. Management responsibility as defined in AS9100 Clause 5 (management commitment, customer focus, quality policy, quality planning);

iii. Resource management as defined in AS9100 Clause 6 (provisions for resources, human resources, infrastructure, work environment);

iv. Product realization as defined in AS9100 Clause 7 (planning, customer-related processes, design and development [if applicable], purchasing, production and service provision, control of monitoring and measuring devices);

v. Measurement, analysis and improvement as defined in AS9100 Clause 8 (monitoring and measurement, control of nonconforming product, analysis of data, improvement).

c. An effective quality management approach that describes how the QMS clauses above will be implemented at the site level. The quality management approach must be compliant with AS 9100. SOPs must describe when the development and submission of Local Operating Instructions (LOIs) would be required IAW PWS 4.3.2.1.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Scenario Applications

The Government will assess the Offeror’s sample scenario application for CFT Task Order requirements. The sample scenarios presented in this sub-factor are representative of the work performed within CFT but will not be awarded as a result of this source selection. These scenarios are for evaluation purposes only and will not contribute to the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors must maintain consistency across all sub-factors when responding to sample scenarios. Failure to comply with this consistency requirement may result in an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. A transition plan tailored to each applicable sample scenario IAW attached CDRL A007 located within section J of the RFP (PWS 4.2.1). The transition plan must indicate a clear understanding of transition requirements, and ensure that all requirements of the transition elements specified in PWS Section 6.6 would be met for each applicable scenario.

b. A scenario specific management plan which provides effective site supervision on day 1 of scenario Period of Performance and ensures each scenario could be successfully completed in accordance with PWS para 4.2.3.

c. A scenario specific pricing sheet (for evaluation purposes only, not included in Total Evaluated Price). The pricing sheet for each scenario must be completed correctly, and must indicate a clear understanding of government required minimum amount of staffing necessary to ensure successful performance on each applicable sample scenario. (PWS para 4.2.2)

d. A scenario specific Quality Control Plan, consistent with all elements otherwise contained in their basic contract factors/subfactor responses, and Local Operating Instructions (LOIs), if applicable, IAW attached CDRL A009 & A010 located within section J of the RFP for each applicable sample scenario that indicates clear contractor understanding of quality management requirements. In addition, the offeror must indicate a clear understanding of what circumstances would dictate the generation of site specific LOIs. (PWS 4.3 and 4.3.2.1)

e. Scenario specific written Flight Operations Procedures (FOPs) and Ground Operations Procedures (GOPs) IAW attached CDRL A011 located within section J of the RFP for each applicable sample scenario. The applicable FOPs/GOPs must indicate understanding of aviation flight or ground operations. (PWS 4.4)

2.2.5. Subfactor 5: Small Business Sub-contracting

The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach for Small Business Sub-contracting on CFT Task Order requirements. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. A Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements, and RFP section H-16. Proposed percentages for intended business with small socioeconomic categories must meet requirements for the following small business socioeconomic categories: Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, HUBZone, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned. (PWS 4.6)

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical criteria and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Section L, ITO Attachment 1 and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

RELEVANT

(R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price::

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CFT maintenance requirements. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance of modification, maintenance, inspection and repair of active systems in the US Government inventory, such as aircraft; vehicles; aerospace equipment; missile systems; subsystems such as engines, communications and cryptologic equipment; and ground support equipment. Relevancy shall include descriptions of efforts related to on-site Organizational, Intermediate/Field, and Depot/Sustainment level maintenance support at customer locations both in the Continental United States (CONUS), and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS).

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CFT maintenance requirements. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance that demonstrates the capacity to manage multiple teams of varying size and complexity at locations worldwide. This demonstration may include concurrent management of multiple contracts with varying numbers of personnel and locations.

It may also include contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and CFT maintenance requirements. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance with regard to complexity:

1. Support of requirements with varying levels of Organizational, Intermediate/Field, and Depot/Sustainment level maintenance.

2. Support of multiple types of modification, maintenance, inspection and repair of active systems in the US Government inventory, such as aircraft; vehicles; aerospace equipment; missile systems; subsystems such as engines, communications and cryptologic equipment; and ground support equipment.

3. Support of multiple contracts at locations both in the Continental United States (CONUS), and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS).

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost Reimbursable (CR), Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the CFT requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed may contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. The rating is not based on a qualitive analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Factor 3 –Price

This is not a commercial effort; Far Part 15 applies. However, cost breakdowns are neither required nor desired. Offerors may provide any supporting pricing documentation that supports reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing to assist the Government in evaluation of pricing proposals.

The Offeror’s pricing proposal will be based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculated as follows below. The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable offerors, including option and extension extended prices. Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6 below. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extension does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extension.

This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the three-year Basic Period, both two-year Option Periods, and the 6-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix.

2.4.1 Price Reasonableness Evaluation

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of pricing proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Historical CFT actuals as fully burdened labor rates for the various job categories/skill levels, as well as the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) based on recently awarded CFT Task Orders shall be the basis of labor rate comparison for price evaluation purposes and the determination of reasonable pricing.

FAR 15.403-3 allows the contracting officer to require data other than certified cost or pricing data if adequate information from sources other than the Offeror cannot be obtained that is adequate to determine reasonable pricing. All documentation submitted to support reasonable pricing will be considered in making that determination.

Unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

2.4.2. Balanced Pricing Evaluation

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. Rates will be reviewed to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to CLIN prices. Additionally, proposed rates will be evaluated by comparison of individual loaded (fully burdened) labor rates with Government estimates of labor rates for each job category/skill level.

The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. All documentation submitted to support balanced pricing will be considered in making that determination.

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed evaluated prices be materially unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more individual, composite labor rates or evaluated pricing per performance period is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques contained within FAR 15.404-1(b), such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it represents the lowest TEP; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk to the Government. The Offeror may be rejected by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)(3).

2.4.3. Price Realism Evaluation

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This evaluation is based on review of proposed pricing to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement to further ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Proposed pricing must be realistic for the effort required. It must be consistent with PWS requirements and technical approach. Regarding proposed labor rates, proposed rates must be sufficiently and adequately priced to ensure retention of workforce such that performance is not jeapordized. To be realistic, proposed pricing shall be consistent with the proposed approach, demonstrating an understanding of the requirement and program complexity. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism.

2.4.4. Estimating Methodology

The Offeror’s estimating methodology, including estimating, accounting and purchasing systems as applicable will be considered to ensure these systems can prouce reliable, valid estimates in response to CFT requirements (i.e.,future Task Orders). This is particularly relevant to T&M Task Orders for cost reimbursable efforts subject to DCAA audit.

2.4.5. Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

In accordance with FAR 15.403-(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricing dataif needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricng data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain such data as appropriate. Should the contracting officer determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via data other than certified cost or pricing data. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable, r balanced or realistic pricing. Should the need for this information occur, this opportunity will be provided via an Evaluation Notice (EN) during discussions.

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. Additionally, the pricing proposal will be reviewed in accordance with the TEP. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The following information addresses TEP calculation methodology for TEP calculation. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format. Instructions for completion of the Labor Category Rate Matrix is included on the Summary Tab of the Excel workbook provided in the RFP.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for three-year Base Period, Options I and II, each Option consisting of a two-year period, and 6-month Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract”. The 6-month Extension Period unit prices/rates will be based on pricing proposed for Option Period II. The 6-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The 6-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option II—the last option periodand will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized.

2.4.6.1. For purposes of TEP calculation, the “Total Calculated Price Page” tab in the RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix for the 7.5 year potential ordering period provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract performance periods. The six-month Extension Period pricing shall be based on the last Option Period unit prices. Extended pricing used to calculate the TEP will be based on labor category rates multiplied by the Government-provided best estimated number of hours for each labor category/skill level. All job category/skill level rates as required by the pricing matrix shall be proposed. Rates proposed for all performance periods will be included in the TEP.

2.4.6.2. Information provided below details the pricing methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing and the development/calculation of the TEP.

2.4.7 TEP Calculation Methodology:

The TEP is calculated as the sum of labor, material/services and travel extended pricing based on the Labor Category Rate Matrix. All proposed, fully burdened (loaded) rates are input in the Excel spreadsheets as required. Extended pricing is automatically calculated and summed across labor, material/services and travel to yield the TEP.

2.4.7.1. CONUS and OCONUS Labor Rates

Proposed pricing is evaluated by means of RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix. Fully burdened (loaded) rates are input in the Excel spreadsheets. Rates are to be proposed for labor, material/services and travel. These rates are proposed separately for FFP and T&M effort. Further, rates are provided separately for CONUS and OCONUS geographical locations.

The Labor Category Rate Matrix allows Offerors to input proposed fully burdened/ loaded labor rates for a series of labor classifications. These labor classifications are based on a variety of CFT job categories/skill levels. Each job category/skill levels requires a fully burdened/loaded labor rate. These rates are multiplied by the Government estimated hours for each performance period. The resulting total dollars per job category/skill level are added together yielding a roll-up evaluated price for each performance period.

Labor is categorized by FFP and T&M effort. Proposed ceiling fully loaded rates apply to either FFP or T&M as priced by job category and skill level. FFP Labor is further divided into two categories: FFP Straight-time and FFP Overtime. Labor rates are separately priced for each labor category; all job categories/skill levels are represented in each labor category of ST and OT.

Indirect cost rates for Material/Service and Travel are separately proposed as burdens. These are proposed for each performance period.

Extended pricing for Labor, Material/Service, and Travel are then summed to yield the TEP. The TEP is used as the basis for price evaluation of Offerors’ proposals.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) = Total Evaluated Price for each Period: Labor Rate Basic Period (3 years combined) + Labor Rate Option 1 Period (2 years combined) + Labor Rate Option II Period (2 years combined) + Labor 6-month Extension Period + Material/Service Basic Period (3 years combined) + Material/Service Rate Option 1 Period (2 years combined) + Material/Service Rate Option II Period (2 years combined) + Material/Service 6-month Extension Period + Travel Basic Period (3 years combined) + Travel Rate Option 1 Period (2 years combined) + Travel Rate Option II Period (2 years combined) + Travel 6-month Extension Period.

Basic 3-years Option I 2-years

6-months Total Price

Labor FFP (CONUS)

Labor FFP

(OCONUS)

Labor FFP - Overtime (CONUS)

Labor FFP - Overtime (OCONUS)

Labor T&M (CONUS)

Labor T&M

Labor T&M - Overtime (CONUS)

Labor T&M - Overtime

Material CAP/CAS

Material / Non-Mat’l

Travel G&A

Total Price

2.4.8. Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. Documentation to support rounding will be provided in Section 1, as well as actual rounding in the Labor Category Rate Matrix. The Pricing Matrix format provides for decimal places that must be in accordance with the required decimal format. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.4.9. Proposed Ceiling Rates (this is in two Sections of L: 5.3.3 & 5.11.)

All rates proposed will be evaluated in support of the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing. All rates required to be proposed will be reviewed to ensure complete pricing is provided; complete pricing is an aspect of reasonable pricing. Price proposal analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404, as required. Proposed rates will be evaluated to ensure these are adequately and sufficiently proposed to ensure Offerors have an adequate understanding of the requirement and program complexity and ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Proposed pricing will be reviewed for realism to ensure prposed pricing is realistic for the effort required.

2.4.11. SCLS/CFT NWD 99-0316

The Government will review Section 1 of the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s compliance with the instruction to comply with SCLS and CFT NWD 99-0316, Attachment 4. Compliance with the SCLS/CFT NWD is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. Offerors’ demonstration of their understanding of the SCLS/CFT NWD as applicable for SCLA-covered positions will be reviewed. It should be noted that actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and Wage Determination (WD) as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact (POC)in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.4.12. Price Assumptions

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to understand the basis of proposed fully burdened rates to assist in the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing. Review will include evaluation of supporting data and estimating methodology. All information provided will be considered in evaluation of pricing proposals.

2.4.13. Subcontractors/Vendor Pricing

Probable subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology used to determine subcontractor/vendor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.4.14. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision Any price reductions in accordance with corporate or management instruction will be evaluated to ensure proposed pricing is realistic, balanced and reasonable. Information pertaining to such price reductions is key to adequately understanding each Offeror’s basis for proposed pricing.

2.4.15. Annual Price Changes

Proposed pricing increases greater than 5% annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to reasonableness, balance and realism.

2.4.17. Government Field Support Agencies

Compliance with the requirement for cognizant DCAA/DCMA field office information provided in Section will be noted, if such information is applicable to the Offeror.

2.4.18. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support or justify their proposed pricing.